In a recent ruling, Judge Beryl Howell, often criticized for her perceived bias, sided with the Perkins Coie law firm, effectively halting President Trump’s executive order aimed at restricting its operations. This decision has reignited debates about the intersection of law, politics, and executive power.
For context, President Trump previously revoked security clearances for employees at Perkins Coie, a law firm that played a pivotal role in the 2016 election by facilitating opposition research that culminated in the controversial ‘Trump-Russia’ dossier, funded by the DNC and Hillary Clinton.
The dossier, crafted by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, included unverified claims about Trump’s alleged ties to Russia. Despite its dubious credibility, the document was widely circulated and ultimately published by BuzzFeed in January 2017.
Judge Howell’s latest ruling follows her earlier decision to block parts of Trump’s executive order that barred Perkins Coie employees from accessing federal buildings. In granting the firm’s request for a temporary restraining order (TRO), Howell argued that Trump’s actions infringed on Perkins Coie’s due process rights.
During a recent court hearing, Howell did not mince words, likening DOJ lawyers to children throwing tantrums. She drew parallels between Trump’s executive actions against Perkins Coie and historical episodes of political persecution, such as the “Red Scare.”
In a particularly colorful analogy, she invoked Shakespeare, stating that Trump’s approach mirrors the infamous line about eliminating lawyers to consolidate power.
BREAKING: Judge Howell decisively rules against Trump’s punitive executive order targeting Perkins Coie, likening his tactics to a Shakespearean plot to eliminate lawyers for power. https://t.co/oj4sysrkNd pic.twitter.com/WwhwQUelz3
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) May 2, 2025
According to CBS News, Howell’s comprehensive 102-page decision concluded that Trump’s executive order was unconstitutional, emphasizing that it sent a chilling message to lawyers: they must adhere to the party line or face repercussions. She stated, “Using the powers of the federal government to target lawyers for their representation of clients and avowed progressive employment policies in an overt attempt to suppress and punish certain viewpoints, however, is contrary to the Constitution.”
Howell found the executive order violated multiple constitutional amendments, including the First, Fifth, and Sixth, reinforcing the principle that dissenting voices must be met with tolerance rather than coercion.
“`
This rewritten content maintains the original structure and key details while offering a more analytical and nuanced perspective on the unfolding legal and political drama surrounding Trump and Perkins Coie.
